Share this article

Mrs Buttar had been staying with the family for six month and according to Rajvinder Kaur she would call her names, threaten her and behave unkind to her.

The court was told that Kaur’s two sons, aged nine and 18 months were at home at the time of the killing.

A previous trial, at which Mrs Kaur denied having anything to do with the death, was halted earlier this year when she admitted the killing.

Winchester Crown Court where the trial is held

At one point she said her mother-in-law had a bath and was putting some oil on when she must have slipped and sustained the injuries, the court was told.

Prosecutor Bill Mousley QC said when a paramedic arrived there was shouting between Mrs Kaur and her husband, Iqbal Singh and Mrs Kaur was washing her mother-in-law’s body with a handheld shower in the bath.

Mr Singh and the paramedic lifted Mrs Buttar out of the bath and into the kitchen while Kaur watched.

Resuscitation attempts were unsuccessful.

Mr Mousley said: “She claims that she is not guilty of murder but only of manslaughter because she was provoked into losing her self-control by Baljit Buttar’s general and specific conduct towards her.

‘She claims she was unkind to her and would call her names.

‘She claims that in the bathroom her mother-in-law was threatening to her.

‘Alternatively at the time of the attack it is said she was in an abnormal mental state which may limit her responsibility for the death.”

Mrs Buttar had been staying with the family since August 2010 and had been due to return to India on February 27 - just two days after she had died.

Mr Mousley told the court: ‘It is clear that she was very angry when she attacked and killed her mother-in-law but her behaviour was not triggered by any fear of being seriously harmed or wronged.

‘Whatever the reason for her deadly violence, it was not a justifiable one.

‘Any explanation which the defendant may now seek to advance should be viewed with, at the very least, considerable scepticism considering her persistent attempts to mislead the police and the court on a previous occasion, as well as her own psychiatrist.

‘Faced with the evidence against her, this late change of tack is just another dishonest effort at limiting the damage.’